I find myself, as do many colleagues, spending 50% of my consulting time debunking what our clients tell us they know and use for their decision-making. Much of their misunderstanding is because they have learned, and accepted as true, both pseudo-science and misinformation, i.e., other people's wrong interpretations. However, the biggest factor is their lack of foundation science - they do not have the concepts of biology, chemistry, physics, or statistical analysis not to mention data collection methodology.
Doctors, with creds like MD's, OD's, and medical practitioners like RNs, Nurse Practitioners (who can diagnose and prescribe pharmaceuticals), and various "health and wellness community" influencers and providers like naturopaths, dietitians, nutritionists, chiropractors, supplement sales, all your various true-blue charlatans, and many others have zero education in data methods - this means they can't analyze scientific literature with the skills for critiquing and understanding the meaning of data and how it's collected.
This makes communication quite harrowing indeed - they hire us, trust us, for our science that they "need" - and then, rebuke us, ostracize us, and get angry when we do not fit their non-science narrative with our science-based critical thinking.
Debunking is necessary but also confrontational.
I'd love to see these types of scenarios fit into your paradigm. "Simplification" to their level of knowledge is far more complicated than your process allows. There is not "Level" for pseudo-knowledge. Think about it - MD's have more years of "science"-based education yet are some of the most staunch adherents to pseudo-science and are easily swayed by the charlatans when the language of "sales" is couched in a technical science-y word salad.
Agree, it's tricky and there is much more to it than what a Substack article can offer but piecing together lots of ideas from a variety of science communicators can be useful. I know I take advice from many of my scientist and sci comm colleagues. I highly recommend this Substack from Jess Steier (amazing and talented public health scientist and science communicator) and Unbiased Science. Let me know your thoughts as I think it will address some of your comments. https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/a-public-health-scientist-walks-into
This is a great resource, Aimee. Indeed, focusing on what our audience needs to hear is a crucial step toward effective science communication. It helps ensure that our message is understood without compromising the accuracy of the science. During my master's training, I organized immunology tutorials for undergraduate health students, where I relied heavily on visual aids and analogies to explain complex immunology concepts. I found that students not only understood the material better but also retained the concepts more effectively. Your five-tier framework provides a practical way to apply these principles, and I can see it being valuable not only for teaching but also for public engagement and science advocacy.
LIKE!
I find myself, as do many colleagues, spending 50% of my consulting time debunking what our clients tell us they know and use for their decision-making. Much of their misunderstanding is because they have learned, and accepted as true, both pseudo-science and misinformation, i.e., other people's wrong interpretations. However, the biggest factor is their lack of foundation science - they do not have the concepts of biology, chemistry, physics, or statistical analysis not to mention data collection methodology.
Doctors, with creds like MD's, OD's, and medical practitioners like RNs, Nurse Practitioners (who can diagnose and prescribe pharmaceuticals), and various "health and wellness community" influencers and providers like naturopaths, dietitians, nutritionists, chiropractors, supplement sales, all your various true-blue charlatans, and many others have zero education in data methods - this means they can't analyze scientific literature with the skills for critiquing and understanding the meaning of data and how it's collected.
This makes communication quite harrowing indeed - they hire us, trust us, for our science that they "need" - and then, rebuke us, ostracize us, and get angry when we do not fit their non-science narrative with our science-based critical thinking.
Debunking is necessary but also confrontational.
I'd love to see these types of scenarios fit into your paradigm. "Simplification" to their level of knowledge is far more complicated than your process allows. There is not "Level" for pseudo-knowledge. Think about it - MD's have more years of "science"-based education yet are some of the most staunch adherents to pseudo-science and are easily swayed by the charlatans when the language of "sales" is couched in a technical science-y word salad.
Agree, it's tricky and there is much more to it than what a Substack article can offer but piecing together lots of ideas from a variety of science communicators can be useful. I know I take advice from many of my scientist and sci comm colleagues. I highly recommend this Substack from Jess Steier (amazing and talented public health scientist and science communicator) and Unbiased Science. Let me know your thoughts as I think it will address some of your comments. https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/a-public-health-scientist-walks-into
Thanks, printed the strategy chart to remind me so I am not unconsciously crawling back to tier 1
Thanks for letting me know! I'm so glad to hear you think the chart is useful :)
This is a great resource, Aimee. Indeed, focusing on what our audience needs to hear is a crucial step toward effective science communication. It helps ensure that our message is understood without compromising the accuracy of the science. During my master's training, I organized immunology tutorials for undergraduate health students, where I relied heavily on visual aids and analogies to explain complex immunology concepts. I found that students not only understood the material better but also retained the concepts more effectively. Your five-tier framework provides a practical way to apply these principles, and I can see it being valuable not only for teaching but also for public engagement and science advocacy.